Speed boost: Sony SLT-A77 II review posted

The Sony SLT-A77 II uses that company's translucent mirror technology in combination with an AF system that Sony claims is dramatically improved over its predecessor. It boasts 12fps continuous shooting with AF, not to mention a 24MP sensor, built-in Wi-Fi with NFC, 2.4M dot OLED viewfinder and a tiliting/swiveling LCD. We put its impressive AF claims to the test.

Comments

Seriously, nice to get some a77II A-Mount attention. But if this early 2015 camera makes the list, then new Samsung NX-1 kits are still being marketed on the Bay.

Both excellent. Though what does it say about the state of current industry when four year old cameras make the cut? Thanks for the A-Mount attention anyway. Love that fully articulating LCD and vertical grip with full set of duplicate horizontal controls.

I was planning to buy a sony a77 ii but later found out that the sony a6300 was really good. Considering the accessories and lenses for the above mentioned cameras, could any1 suggest me which camera to buy

If you want to use long focal lengths (birding f.i.) and for fast AF-tracking (sports f.i.), A mount is the best choice.Light weight, travel, etc E-mount could be your choice.It all depends on what your needs are.......

I'd suggest the reviewer buy a dictionary before saying Reflex has anything todo with reflection !!!! (I guess the sony PR handout started this twaddle)

reflex <> reflect ever !!!however the Noun does apply to both a thing which mimics the essential features of something else. In the case the single lens reflex mimics the image onto the ground glass pane.

reflexˈriːflɛks/Submitnoun1.an action that is performed without conscious thought as a response to a stimulus."a newborn baby is equipped with basic reflexes"2.a thing which is determined by and reproduces the essential features or qualities of something else."politics was no more than a reflex of economics"adjective1.(of an action) performed without conscious thought as an automatic response to a stimulus.

Single-lens reflex cameras (SLRs) were so-named because the viewer looked directly through the lens, which flexed out of the way for that vital instant. In theory the viewer saw precisely what he was photographing, rather than a very nearby image. (I could be wrong, but that always made sense to me.)

You are correct, as far as I know, in assuming people do care. And I know you are not "an English teacher or something" because your response to tbcass omits the required apostrophe for the contraction in "I think you're wrong."

Why do reviewers always fail to list the in camera focus limiter as a plus? It is a great feature and is infinitely variable on both the short and long end, something no lens limiter can do. I use it with my Tamron 150-600 with great results.

Mar K: Not relevant and you are completely incorrect. SLT cameras show the same detail as Mirrorless. Test after test by reputable people and camera sites has shown there is no detail hit with the SLT mirror. The reason is the JPG processing. The default JPGs of the A77ii use too much NR. Using NR low shows more detail with virtually no increase in noise. Another factor is the JPG sharpness setting. The A6000 by default applies more sharpening to it's JPGs.

I have seen a few people are having the same problem as me. I get an error message while I'm shooting, right in the top middle of my screen. Only way to make it go away is to shut down for some time. It often locks up as well, same thing, I need to turn it off for around 10 seconds and you can hear it reset. How do I keep the message "error" from coming up?

I have seen this. I had updated to firmware 2.0 when it first came out with no issues at all. I sent the camera off for repair and the stupid repair shot updated the firmware again (although not needed) and now I get that same error. It maybe worthwhile to try to re-update the firmware. Perhaps it will go away.

If you have serious money invested in Nikon lenses then it is a hard sell but if you only have the Nikon kit lens here's 10 reasons I can think of:1) F2.8 Sony kit lens is far better than the Nikon kit lens.2) In body image stabilization.3) 12 frames a second (8 in standard mode) WHILE CONTINUISLY TRACKING FOCUS.4) Faster & surer focusing.5) 8 more mega-pixels. 6) Tilt/Swivel screen.7) EVF (when you use it, you'll see)8) ISO 509) Weather sealed.10) There's a treasure-trove of reasonably priced, high quality lenses available for Sony's 'A' mount cameras, new & used.

Only you would know if these things make it worthwhile for you to switch but I sold my Canon for this and never regretted it.

I am actually not anti-anything. I think there are many things to like about the a77 mkII - but not sure there are enough to justify the purchase, since I already have a D7000. And yes, a huge buffer actually is a big deal for me - the D7000 was crippled with such a small one. Thanks for the info tb.

hello dear rstoer,thanks for your informative comment. I'm a Nikon user and I have almost 15 Nikon DSLR. I like to switch to Sony but I'm just afraid. I've to mention that I like to buy just one ful frame Sony which can fulfil all my needs. A camear which I can shoot land/city scape and also meybe action/Birds.my biggest concern is I dont know about lenses for sony cameras? their price? or if I can't get enogh moeny, can I buy some oldy lenses to use with it?Actually I'm a land / city scaper and I don't need punch of lenses. just one or two lens will be enough for me. one for land/city scape and maybe one lens for action/birds photography. A lens like: Sigma Aspherical IF EX DG HSM 24-70mm f/2.8 AF Lens for Sony Alphaor Sigma 24-105mm 1:4 DG OS HSM Art Serie für Sony will be enough for me. and maybe a extra lens for action/birdshooting. but it is not necessary. cause I don't shoot action much.I need some professional advice to could make my final dicision.

pls look my gear list. my D3300, D5500 and D7200 are compleetly new and their shot account is not more than 200 shots. also my D810 is a few years old but has no more than 2000 shots account. I'll be tanksfull if you like help me to could make my final decision. pls let me know, than we can talk further.thanks in advance.

"The camera focuses so quickly, that as I move from face to face, it refocuses on the background, before focusing on the next face."

Seriously, how is that *useful*?

I don't mean to rant but why would I want the background to come into focus during that panning shot from one face to another? Expressionist auteur style cinematic reasons excepted ;-)))

What I'd *want* is the *faces* coming onto focus as the focus of attention is shifted onto them *without* the background being focused.

This is a prime example of how autofocus (and automation in general) is overrated. You don't want to adjust your ideas to what the camera is able to achieve automatically. You want to implement your *ideas*, and the tool should mostly 'stay out of the way' so to speak.

Honestly, after viewing Gary Fong's YT vid on this camera, I'm thinking that in order to get it to do what you want you need to spend a bit more time tweaking all of the multitude of focus and tracking settings before you claim that it doesn't work. I had to do this with my a6000 and I have the A77II coming next week (bought used on FM). Also, check out the Gary Friedman vid on the difference in tracking settings and how the focus system works. Patrick Murphy-Racey on his blog column covers sports shoots with this body as well. If it isn't working for you, look further...

I upgraded from the a65 to the a77mark2. Recently I went on a hike up one of the local mountains and mistakenly brought my a65 instead of my a77 m2. The first thing I noticed was how slowly the older camera focused. It seemed to take forever by comparison. I really like the speed of the newer camera. I take a lot of photo of sports and have had some good success with action pictures. This camera is fast. I have also used it for weddings, family portraits, landscape photos and astrophotography. It is a very good all around camera. There are cameras that could do better but I do not want to pay four times the price I paid for the a77m2 to get it.

The most enjoyable camera that I've ever shot with. It performs superbly and is an all-around camera. Did landscapes for commercial clients with it. Photographed surfers,runners,bicycliests,cars, events,artwork for reproduction. It is so customize able, that I can configure it in so many ways to maximize picture quality, my shooting style. Only wish Sony had put the same image stabilization as in the Sony A7 mm 2, but the existing image stabilization works. Love the articulated screen--a joy to use. Lots of great A-mount lenses still work beautifully from the Minolta days. Bought a stellar 50mm f1.4 Minolta amount for $50.00 bucks---it is superb. Great camera for the price .

JUNK! JUNK! JUNK! Even at ISO 200 this thing is mushy! Why does Sony even bother to keep producing alpha lenses for garbage like this? And meanwhile the whole Nex product line looks like the Island of Broken Toys!

I'm a bit of a novice have used Leica V-LUX 4 for a coupla years and now ready to jump up a bit. I've read a lot of reviews and the SLT 17II looks very appealing. If I choose Sigma lenses (150-600mm & 28-70mm) will I still get quick AF with these lenses. It's a budget thing.Thanks

I can't speak for the Sigma lenses you mentioned but I have the Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 and the 150-600mm F/5-6.3 and the auto focus is fast & sure on both. The A77 MkII is also very fast focusing - great for sports and wildlife. I understand the budget thing. My other lenses are the Sony 16-50mm F/2.8, the Tamron 90mm F/2.8 Macro and the Sigma 8-16mm super wide. Some were bought new and some used. This 12-900mm (35mm equiv.) range allows me to get virtually any shot. To approximate this kind of coverage using all Sony lenses would cost a small fortune.

I'm still very disappointed in DP for not doing the same video comparison with the A77mkII as they did with cameras like the Nikon D5500 and other cameras. WHERE IS THE VIDEO STILL shot so I can compare how it handles detail in comparison with other cameras? It's the only camera that I can't get that info on. PLEASE update the article with that test if you can. It would help immensely.

I just bought the A77II and have the A7. Personally, I feel the A77II is the best ALL AROUND camera Sony makes right now- period. Image quality is fantastic, speed is superb, build..grip...matches great with bigger lenses, etc. The A7 can get the job done, but I feel like it's a massive step back in every other regard outside of IQ- and even that (given the lossy raw file issue) is subject to question.

I've tried the a6000 as well. No thanks man, no thanks. Feels cheap compared to the A77 and constant auto focusing is not as good. Yes, it's fast- but fast and accurate are two seperate things. Try mounting a bigger lens on the A6000 and it does not balance well at all. A77II IMO is not a deal...it is a complete STEAL given what it can do at its price point.

Has "Center Lock-on AF" actually been tested?It is a mode different from and incompatible with the standard "Lock-on AF" that needs to be enabled in the menu (Record menu, page 7) and upon pressing the joystick twice it locks onto whatever is in the center of the frame.

Also, what settings were used for "AF drive speed"? (N.b. that's a different setting from "AF Track Duration".)

I shoot at high ISO's all the time and I see no reason not to. First of all, I shoot exclusively in RAW and then there is a plethora of good RAW processing software out there that takes care of the noise. DXO optics pro is my choice and the folks at MacPhun software just issued Noisless Pro which I also purchased and is good. The auto focus is a plus and focusing is not hit and run like they say. But anyhow this is my humble experience based on my own experience with this great camera.

I see that the usual crowd of self-appointed Internet Security Experts (tm) have all made the same predictable 'jokes' about 'rootkits'.

Let's put this to rest once and for all: there never was any 'Sony rootkit', and Sony have never been involved in any form of malicious software, ever. These persistent lies are rapidly becoming stale and tedious and have no value in any serious discourse on consumer electronics or network security.

One wonders if Sony are now planning legal action against those responsible for disseminating these vicious lies.

It would be interesting to see the people making these unfair, untrue and libellous allegations receive their comeuppance in a court of law. Or will they rapidly back down and retract their lies?

I have seen none of this on the threads, maybe I missed one in 100 posts? And I have been tracking this since the day it was posted. Your post feels more like it is designed to instigate that topic pretending to be against it.

Seems OK to me in those shots that are not grossly underexposed- of which there are many. It compares very well with my D7100 results and has the advantage of that faster zoom, and in the basketball shots where the colour is iffy moaners can just adjust to suit anyway- and all cameras do this.

I might go back to using a Lunasix with a cone on to avoid underexposure too. Let's hope that to level the playing field somewhat, that DPr. does so too!!

Nice Review Compare samples that i can see of the d7200 to the SLT-A77 II i dont like the quality off the SLT-A77 II i thought it would be the same sensor must be different upload ore its something totally different.

Anything towards the edge is a lens issue. Remember the A77M@ is a year older than the D7200.. which I agree as far as noise goes has really good output. Not sure if D7200 is using a Sony Sensor. Even when they do.. beware the myth of the same sensor. Nikon has its own sensor design patents and its own design ideas about the Bayer filter etc over the sensor.. IF you stay near the center where the lens issue was no in play say the top part of the Money shot or the Beatles patch the over all IQ is much closer. But I think even DXO gives a better rating to the D7200

Thank you for your review. Could you please measure sensor performance of already tested cameras in Exposure Latitude test. This is very interesting & important for astrophotography & some other low light applications.

I have owned the a55 a77mk1 I own the a99 and the a77ii The A55 was a brilliant camera and was my main reason for dropping canon. I have been very impressed with the sony range and the a77ii was purchased for wildlife action the extra compressed crop at the centre of frame 24mp was required for shooting smaller prey such as kingfishers. The af and extra reach on the a77ii are a welcome improvement although If an a99ii had been released with 36mp with same af system I would have opted for that..early days with the a77 I have a few pics on my flicker site using a range of sony cameras in real world.. https://www.flickr.com/photos/graylinghunter1/sets/

I don't get this comment about the grip on this camera. I can grip this camera without any problem and it feels very secure in my hands. I haven't even put the strap on yet, and only use it with a large zoom, Tamron 150-600 lens.

I have just returned from a holiday in Italy and, due to a badly broken left arm, had to carry and operate the camera one handed for the entire 2 weeks.I purchased a new hand strap and the job was a good 'un. There was no problem at all and I just had to get used to framing the shot with the zoom using one hand.This camera proved to be the easiest to hold that I have ever had.

I am using canon 70d with canon 300 mm f4 with tc for BF, I have sony a600 with 70-200 g and I liked both settings, I am wondering if I would buy the sony a77ii for wildlife, in that case with lens do you recommend , cost is important

I would recommend the Sony 70-400G over the Sigma 150-600 any day of the week. Sigma lenses tend to have focusing issues and that can only be at its worst at 600mm where you are most likely to use the lens. The sony 70400G lenses are uncharacteristically sharp at the long end. It has less reach but in the end it is the quality you will enjoy.

One alternative to buy the version 1 of the lens, you may still find a few available. The difference between #1 and #2 is the lens coating which really is small considering the cost difference. The lens is fantastic and just because there is a version 2 out, does not mean version 1 is any less.

We've been using the SLT A57 since early 2013. We use it primarily to take photos of my son's basketball games. While we're generally happy, it does have some minor issues. That said, I'm pretty heavily invested into a-type lenses.

I'm ready (I think) to move to something more current. I'm curious if it makes sense to upgrade to something like the A77II, or to divest myself of the a mounts and move on to mirrorless. If I should upgrade in the DSLR space, is the A77II a significant enough improvement on the A57 to justify the cost? I've also considered jumping to Nikon, though I'm not sure if I'd gain anything there.

Lots of us were upgraded from A77mk1 to A77mk2.And I can honestly tell you that it is a significant improvement compare to A77mk1 & it definitely worth the upgrade.So, if you are upgrade from A57, I am sure you will be happier than us.

Ditto what he just said. The move from A77 to A772 was a bigger improvement than the name would infer. Its a great camera and if you did into the DPR review and some of the discussions you will see DPR testers are ranking AF Tracking this wayNikon FF (750/810) $2200-3000+Samsung APS Mirrorless NX1 $1200 (Kit $2700!)Sony APS DSLT A77M2!! $900 (Kit $1500)Canon APS DSLR 7DMKII $1700Canon FF DSLR 5d MKIII $2400Its a heck of value, even more so if you already have some lenses. But the new Focus system will be best with the 16-50mm F2.8 Zoom or any of the recent SSM GII Zooms.

I made the exact same move (A57 to A77II). I am a big fan of the A57, it's an excellent performer that's well balanced model between your typical entry level and something more advanced, and I would have bought it again if I had to do it all over. The A77II is definitely a more advanced camera that, as long as you're comfortable familiarizing yourself with the many different modes and options, you'll appreciate the upgrade and find it worthwhile. It's easily the best value on the market for DSLRs right now, fighting in a weight class cameras that are almost double in price. Mirrorless like the A6000 are impressive but can get expensive fast when you're talking E-mount native lens solutions, particularly versus comparable A-mount lenses. I suggest you go to DPR's Sony SLR/SLT A-mount Talk forum http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1037 and post your question there (and what other gear accompanies your A57) for a more detailed analysis.

I moved from A 57, and I really liked the A 57. I have really gotten my money's worth from it.

I shoot wildlife/birds, and was interested in the more sophisticated AF modes. It is more of a learning curve from the A 57. It's a slight improvement in Low light ISO. I like that I can up ISO in many more increments than I could with the A 57. FPS is a little faster. It's a better build IMO.Of course it may depend on what type of photography you like, but for birds it's an improvement over the A 57. I think the A 77 II is a great value just as the A 57. Should you be bothered that the A 57 is a "Gold" and A 77 II a "Silver" I'd disregard that. The A 77 II is a step up.

I moved from the A700 to the A77ii, skipping the A77, and it was the best move yet. The A700 was an awesome DSLR, but the A77ii was miles ahead in pretty much every area except ease of use - or should I say ease of knowing how to use it! Much more complicated, but well worth it.

A77II owner for 6 months.Pro:It is the only flip screen (invaluable feature to me) SLR styled camera that can fast focus.I tried Canon 70D before buying, under liveview mode, 70D focusing is amateur.I have not tried 7DMKII , but hey without flipscreen and capable live view, it simply can't take interesting angle photo easily comparing to A77II

Crons:- I was very reluctant to get A77II because of a lot of amazing , well priced lens from Sigma not avaialble in A-mount. - Sony prime telephoto offer is way more expensive to her competitors, even without in lens stabiliser.

-I felt rather "sad" when I had my hand on a Sony A-6000 with its amazing focus ability, and start to wonder if there are still value to the SLT system and worry about the future of A-mount. At my local Sony showroom, A6000 is the star and they put A77II at a quiet corner. I asked the Sales people at Sony if A77II has any advantage over A6000 in terms of focusing , and they can't give a clear answer to me.

I would not worry about the future of A-mount. There may come some point in time, when Sony will be able to produce an SLR shaped E-mount camera with an LEA adapter that can match the performance of a dedicated A-mount camera. From that point on, it makes no sense to produce any more A-mount camera's.

For A-mount users, when that time comes, it will have only advantages: all their A-mount stuff can still be used 100% (so no loss of investment), but they gain the advantages of the mirrorless E-mount (like the usage of all kinds of lenses via adapters).

Editorial question: why is in-body stabilization a green while in-lens stabilization a red? This seems more a design choice rather than a benefit.AF: Are there any dual-cross sensors? Are the sensors rated for exposure, e.g. -3 EV?What happened to the ISO and DR charts?Noise invariance: is there a way to quantify and compare the noise level at each push? Can this be done for alternate ISO values besides 100?IS performance: Was this test measured or was it subjective; is there a quantified standard of acceptability, e.g. lp/mm?

The last dual cross AF sensor point I have seen on a Sony APS-C camera was the A77 and it was only for the center for lenses F/2.8 or faster.

Having said that, the A77II has 15 cross type AF points and the central AF point (which is a cross type as well) is F/2.8 sensitive for fast lenses.

The AF is rated to work as low as -2EV without an AF assist lamp. With the last firmware update, low light focusing was improved upon and users are claiming even better low light focusing than before. What this amounts to in EVs is unknown since no official word was released nor measurements taken.

Thank you! I find these little details often overlooked in reviews yet so incredibly useful in circumstances in which I find myself.

Any commentary about the ability to control the camera "eye in viewfinder," i.e. rapidly changing ISO, aperture, shutter speed, focus point selection, focus point mode, while keeping your eye in the viewfinder? How often do you have to menu hunt with your eyes on the screen rather than composing?

I love my viewfinder. The LCD stays shut most of the time. I can access everything from the viewfinder.

The A77II has many buttons, almost all of them can be customized. With the improved button feel, with a little practice, you can quickly change ISO, exposure compensation, white balance, shooting speed, etc. with a quick button press and spin of the rotary wheels.

The two rotary dials by the thumb and finger can be used to quickly adjust shutter speed or aperture, depending on the shooting mode you are in. They can also be customized as to how they function (ie, flip the functionality of the two).

You also have a custom function menu if you wish to do things via the display. This can be brought up by pressing the Fn button. It overlays across what you see, so you don't lose site of the subject. Here you can layout your most preferred options so you can quickly make your changes without having to hunt through the menus.

I own the camera 40 days and i have shot 5500 photos so far. before i had a canon eos 70d for 2 months and a nikon d7100 for one week.

the sony a77 ii for the money and what is supossed to do its superior of any other .the quality of the image depend from the lens you use and if you know what are you doing.i disagree with the high iso noise , in real life its not visible up to 3200.the quality of jpeg its suberp depending on photographer preferences and the setup in the menu , amazing creativity just right out of the camera.neither canon or nikon have something like that. i own 4 lenses Sony 16-105mm , Sony 35mm 1.8 , Minolta 100-300mm apo d, minolta 100-200mm f4.about the cons in this review i disagree to all , none of them it is a problem for me . or a reason to looking for something else EXCEPT the Samsung NX1 but it cost i think 500 more .i update my galery frequently...

It would also be useful to know what settings and which lens(es) were used in the review. This really should be presented in the intro to give the entire review a context and some meaning. Again, feel free to use my recommendations and you're welcome. :)

I don't think the .jpeg images look very good either, plus I'm getting much better low light performance with my camera than I've seen in the examples. I wouldn't recommend shooting .jpeg in low light with this camera. I always shoot RAW no matter the light.

I have to note that shooting hummingbirds it has helped me that it was noted that Lock On AF hunts, and the reviewer turned it off. That has been my experience but I wasn't sure if it was the camera or the Lens. After reading the review I went out this morning even in cloudy conditions and there is a marked improvement with obtaining focus on hummingbirds with Lock On AF off. So the review has helped me. I'm not so bothered by the "Silver Award" now.

Salutems; Dream on. I used to own an A100, same sensor as the A200. I now own an A77 and A77ii both of which have much better high iso performance than the A200. I would say 2-3 stops better so you can fool yourself into thinking that your A200 has less noise but but in no way shape or manor is that true.

I started out with the A 200. There has been a steady progression of improved low light performance in the cameras I had A 200-A 500-A 57-A 77 II. Shooting Raw I can push to ISO 2000 for wildlife shots. I rarely could go to ISO 800 with the A 200. I'd be hard pressed to find a ISO 800 shot I saved with the A 200.

I looked at the studio scene shots and the .jpeg and .raw images from the Sony A77 MK II look soft. Why is that? I've not seen any images shot raw out of my A77 mK II that look this soft and lousy. I find the quality of the images posted in the studio scene to be questionable. The quality should be better.

There doesn't seem to be any argument on this point, they were upfront about this issue from the beginning, so either you haven't read through all the comments or just decided to argue something nobody else is.

Others: Keep in mind that small differences are exaggerated in the studio scene b/c you're pixel-peeping under very controlled conditions. The a77II isn't far behind the Fuji APS-C cameras or the NX1 in fact, as you see here. Just not as good as Canon/Nikon b/c their primes are better in this regard.

We even said we tried the Sigma Art, but couldn't use it due to extra noise from less light. And one of the primary uses of our studio scene is noise analysis, NOT image sharpness, which is conflated in our studio scene w/ lens sharpness.

So is it that we're making excuses, or that you don't like the results so are just trolling our site?

Here's a quote from a very well trusted tester, Kurt Munger, in regard to the 50mm1.4 ZA "One expects the centers of all lenses to be very sharp now days, even at F/1.4, but the side, and corner performance of this lens is stunning!"

So after looking at your test shots of the corners, it leads me to believe that either you had a bad copy of the lens, are a bad photographer or did it on purpose. What is it?

That's kind of the photographic equivalent of the loaded question "have you stopped beating your wife?"... You're expecting the answer to be either "B" or "C", and if it's not you won't be satisfied. Is it entirely possible there are Zeiss 50's out there that are tack sharp corner to corner? Absolutely. But you ask as if you've never heard of lens variation. I've had lenses that were dogs and never lived up to their hype, and lenses that were every bit as good as advertised. It happens.

Fair enough. I was critical of the untimeliness of the review myself. They gave their explanation, a good one, for the delay (massive staff overhaul), but nonetheless still produced a 'better late than never' review. If they failed to review it entirely there would be different criticisms leveled (and they were already happening). Can't change the past, it's history now, and it's a no-win situation to be overly critical about it at this point.

When they posted their first set of (since abandoned) test shots they were done with the standard cheap 50 f1.8 DT. I had lamented why do they always go to that lens when Canon/Nikon competitors always got the more expensive, stepped up 50 f1.4. When they did the reshoot at least they tried two different lenses, the Zeiss and Sigma 50 f1.4 (the standard old Sony 50 f1.4 is notoriously soft). So credit where it is due.

@Rishi Sanyal, I hate to keep coming back to this but there is something very wrong in this statement you made in an earlier post. "The Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 isn't the sharpest lens around, and the only lens around this focal length we could find that was sharper was the Sigma 50mm Art, but that led to lower exposure and more noise."Both lenses are f1.4 but the Sigma lets in less light? I really think you not only need to clairifacation this statement but also qualify your statment about the ZA not being the "sharpest lense around" Please feel free to post test results and not just personal opinions.

Sony, PLEASE provide Sony play memories app compatibility with the Sony A77 MK II. Please provide open source code so third party app writers can add operational features to the Sony A77 via apps like those that are available for the Sony A7 II. Thank you.

I had the A77MII for about four months now. I don't typically do video, but I've found it actually does a better job with erratic bands with the Lock On feature. For photos, i've had better luck with it set to spot or from a distance in front of the action set to wide. I've also realized this isn't a camera that you can use anything other than an ultrasonic lens, otherwise just like the A77 you'll miss shots all day long.

Exactly the conclusion I said they would issue: "The A77ii is good camera- an improvement over the A77i, but buy a Canon...or a Samsung!" I wonder what kind of incentive Amazon gets from Canon and Samsung.

Sadly, the review has the most nonsensical rationale to NOT buy the A77ii: If you don't have a-mount lenses, you should buy something else. Isn't that argument applicable to every new camera that is released by every manufacturer? If you have thousands of dollars invested in Canon lenses, why on earth wouldn't you pass on the D7200 or the A77ii?

This review was a face-saving gesture and that is all. It should have happened months ago. As it is, this is only a feint to appear unbiased.

You're completely wrong about any apparent 'bias'. You're completely wrong about 'incentives' from Amazon - we have complete editorial independence.

Nonsensical rationale? We're trying to approach this from both sides: whether or you are or aren't an A-mount owner. Does that make our argument nonsensical? Of course not. In fact, even if you have thousands invested in glass for a particular mount, it's a specious argument to say you can't sell all that and switch, if the other system has significant advantages for your work.

And that's our job - to point out where there are advantages, and where there are disadvantages.

If you don't like our opinion, please move on. If you have solid evidence that any of our assessment is factually, objectively wrong, then please let us know.

@rishi I don't agree with the harsh tone.. especially towards you and Dan who are very professional even under direct attack. But I do think there is a point about a built in Bias showing when "Doesn't support other makers lenses" is even listed as a concern. You come from the idea that its a switch move vs a first buy move etc. When I moved from my A700 to A77 I did a full brand evaluation, partly because I was an EVF skeptic. I would have sold and moved if I could get a better system for me, even if it cost me. Its like news networks one only labels some guests as "liberal" and another only labels guests as "conservative" because they assume the others are just "normal" like them. Canon Con: "can't use some of the great Zeiss optics released by Sony or lenses like the Great STF." Never ever going to see that in a review of a Canon but its as true as saying Sony can't use Canon both are facts.. but using them selectively adds some bias that is real if not intentional.

K E Hoffman: Thanks. Btw, where do we list 'Doesn't support other makers lenses' as a concern?

I think my overall point is that it's the appearance of bias, not actual bias. The case you mention: just due to different reviewers writing different reviews, and editorial oversight not able to completely, perfectly control for everything all the time.

Btw, you don't have to convince me of the speciousness of the 'can't switch' argument. I myself have switched a number of times, and use different cameras for different purposes (Sony cameras, btw, are amongst ones I personally use). So I also try to approach reviews/opinions with the mindset of 'is this a system you should consider investing in, despite owning another system?'

Which is especially why you'll see me pushing for comparisons across systems/brands, not just internal comparisons. As a scientist, I want to know how my system stacks up against another, whether to consider switching, or confirm I'm shooting w/ the right system.

Also, I don't even understand the OP, or pixelpushing, or any harsh tone from any reader regarding this review, when you consider our line, from "The Final Word":

"Sports and wildlife shooters torn between the a77 II and DSLRs from other manufacturers should consider this: You'd have to spend A LOT more money to get a DSLR with a burst rate as fast as the a77 II's."

In fact, re-reading the last few paragraphs of this review, I can't imagine how we could be more unbiased. We frame the camera as a great choice, but try to make our readers aware that there are other options out there, all the while making it apparent that if X, Y, and Z are really important to you, that the a77 II is in fact a great choice.

Any more gushing and we'd just be biased for Sony, wouldn't we? And then even mentioned a different Sony camera as an alternative... the claims of bias are simply all over the place and, ironically, are themselves what's biased.

How am I being harsh? I just called into question the fact that the A77ii has finally been reviewed well into its production cycle, yet both Canon's and Samsung's offerings received their reviews when their respective cameras were new to the market...right-out-of-the-gate, so to speak. Why is this the case?

Subjectivity is what I love about photography, so differences of opinion are wonderful things, but I think one must concede that there is some reason why the A77ii review was so long in coming and the other APS-C reviews, even for the K3, appeared lightening quick. I am biased toward offerings from Sony, Nikon, and Olympus; I admit that, I just wish the reviewers here would just come right out and share theirs up front.

How refreshing it would be to read, "I shoot Canon; I love Canon, but I understand that not everyone does, so let's talk about the A77ii"?

I would also note that although the Conclusion of the review was overall very positive, both the 7Dii and NX-1 were named, specifically, as alternatives; yet in both of these cameras' conclusions they appear to have been judged by their own merits: No alternatives were named. It just feels like these two cameras are being pushed,

We've stated the reasons for the delay in comments and forums multiple times. I suppose you missed it. Perhaps we should've stated it in the review, thought it felt a bit weird to do so, admittedly.

What we have a problem with is this: because you didn't read the posts where we explained the reasoning, you immediately jumped to assumptions of brand bias on our part, because that's just the favorite thing biased readers jump to, & it's just so easy (and fun, apparently) to start off conversations with accusations of bias.

Rather than start the conversation with a genuine, honest question or concern.

I enjoy DP's full reviews, and I hope you understand why this matters. If I didn't respect your opinion or rely upon you in some way in making a final purchasing decision,it would be no big deal. Many people are of this same mind.

Not having consideration of these users is sad really,

Bias exists, everywhere. I just wish people would be up-front about it. My reason for using the word is stated in one of my replies: Why are specific alternatives named for one product and more or less compared to another product, while other products are judged, apparently, on their own merits?

Rishi great review, I love this camera and having so much fun with it, I am probably not as advanced with my DSLR skills as some of the other members, but as a newbie if you like it's awesome, I am running the 18-270mm PZD Tamron lens with it, love that to!!!!!

Ah but on the conclusions page of the 7D2, we point out that subject tracking AF doesn't live up to Nikons, that low ISO DR doesn't live up to competition, etc. At that point, we hadn't reviewed the a77 II, so were not comfortable making comparisons to it. One valid complaint would be to say we should've mentioned the Sony a6000 as a competitor, and you'd be right on that.

But to say we didn't talk about other choices in the 7D Mark II review is disingenuous at best. Trust me I know we did, b/c we had a ton of backlash over such comparisons from brand loyalists.

Whether or not we have a specific paragraph devoted to this in the last section 'Final Word' of the review is something we leave up to the lead reviewer. We don't want to tie our editorial staff's hands behind their backs.

All we ask is that you don't then take differences between reviews up to the lead reviewer as indications of DPR bias. Any small discrepancies such as those you point out are very difficult to control for.

It seems that if you disagree with the writers or the review, you're HARSH but it's okay to accuse people of fanboyism, spewing opinion and using other harsh language. Seems to me the pot is calling the kettle black - anyone not agreeing with the article is automatically some dumb jerk without the ability to read.

(cons)Doing RAW landscapes, I would not be bothered by- poor Lock-on AF functionality- Heavy noise reduction in JPEG- limited 12 fps mode- Only 15 cross-type AF points, limited to a central portion of the frame- No way to quickly check focus in image review (both A77s have a clunky scroll option, but I'm used to it)- Four-way controller is mushy (again, used to it)- No headphone jack- Buffer takes a long time to clear- I could certainly use higher ISO performance, so noisy high ISO is another reason not to switch.

Sorry Sony, but I decided to keep my MkI long ago / until the next version with GPS.

I switched on "compare mode" to see how it fares against the Canon 70D, a camera in a similar price range to the Sony A77II (body only Canon 70D is $1000, Sony $900). Lo and behold, they don't compare. DPR categorizes the 70D as "Mid Range...DSLR", the A77II as "Semi-professional...DSLR".

So when you see 80% Silver Award, just remember they're scoring it against cameras way above its price class and fighting weight. The 7DII body only is $1700, a body they compare to the A77II. I suspect if they taged it as a "Mid Range" body, it would have scored higher and really cleaned up that category. Still, kudos for classifying the A77II in the category it deserves to be in, and not just looking at price tags to establish that.

That said, I'm not sure what to make of DPR's classifications, particularly when they put full frame and APS-C cameras in the same category. Comparisons are certainly interesting, but on this one big detail alone (sensor size) you simply can't compare them.

Yes, you can. Camera is so much more than the sensor. You can compare AF, build quality, performance, features, handling.People tend to overestimate the importance of sensor IQ in body comparisons.

Are you sure it would "cleaned up" Mid Range? I doubt that. It is a very good camera, but not exactly an enormous improvement over the previous model. And A77 was hardly a winner...

It is hard to neglect the fps, but Canon and Nikon still do quite a lot things better. And there are also some very interesting mirrorless options.

My general advice is: if you're a kind of photographer who likes to think about his camera, Sony is a nice choice (so is Pentax).But if you prefer NOT to think about your camera too much, go C or N. They are much easier to live with.

Well to clarify they score cameras against one another on the basis of comparison between other cameras in the same category. So an 83% scored 70D isn't "1% less" compared to the 84% scored 7DmkII because that's not how DPR calculates score (they're considered different categories of beast).

The only reasons I sought out the comparison in the first place is because the 70D is similarly priced to an A77II (certainly more so than the 7DmkII), and because I've also shot Canon for many years (and still own/shoot Canon gear).

Having shot both Canon and Sony extensively, I speak with confidence of my knowledge on the two platforms, and the pros/cons of each. Like most smart people who use the tools of their trade, I make decisions based strictly on whatever works best for my particular style and skills. Branding has little bearing on that. If any particular brand wanted to sit on their laurels and stop innovating, I could choose to live with it and ride on reputation alone. Or not.

@JeadmYour last paragraph is exactly what I meant.If your a kind of person who cares about manufacturer being "innovative", Sony is an excellent choice.Especially if your understanding of "innovative" is: more features.:)

For me a modern DSLR (like D750 or 5Dm3) is a perfectly good camera. I'd be very happy using something similar for next 50 years.Of course I expect the sensor performance to improve over time. I guess it will loose the mirror and OVF at some point, but I don't care as long as the AF doesn't suffer. I hope 20 fps will become a standard in the next decade - I couldn't utilize more in typical situations.

Moreover, I don't think A77II is a very "innovative" camera.Have you thought it over?It looks and handles like most DSLRs. It takes pictures like most DSLRs.Compared to available DSLRs it has a pellicle mirror, IBIS and EVF, but all are not exactly new or unique ideas...Shooting speed is very good, but that's simply better performance - nothing innovative here.

Glad you agreed with our classification, b/c we had a long conversation about it. It really does perform so well as to merit its classification in a higher class. That, in turn though, means it's compared against a higher bar.

"Like most smart people who use the tools of their trade, I make decisions based strictly on whatever works best for my particular style and skills."

@Jeadm - yeah, I can kind of tell, b/c your comments are very reasonable, instead of immediately jumping to accusations of bias. Thank you for members like you. :)

@pkosewski - thanks also for keeping the conversation very civil. Given how many times we have to deal with uncivil people, I feel we need to start crediting those members who are civil, reasonable, and a pleasure to have around...

Btw, we think the a77 II attempts to be innovative, for sure, just that it doesn't quite meet its own bar of innovation. SLT brought AF-C depth-tracking improvements, but still didn't meet the bar of Nikon's 3D tracking.

I think DPReview is a bit too regaled/pampered/spoiled (*) from the products that Sony came up with during the last years and had very very high expectation. Because if you just review the facts and compare with comparable competition it should have eailiry a gold reward. For example I tested (and finally bought) this a77II and also tested a EOS 70D. The a77II was far better in almost every aspect (or at least similar) but he 70D gets a higher score from dpreview. I think that the expectation were a bit to high. It's not that ultimate miracle wapon that beats a 4DS or 1DX for 15% of the price but compared to other 1000 € APS-C bodies out there it is very very exicting.I love it !

This has been explained many times, but maybe you missed all discussions and statements from DPR staff...

The quantitative score is based on some properties DPR evaluates while reviewing a camera.These scores are relative and should not be compared between different DPR-defined segments.70D and a77 are in "mid range" bin.a77II went up to the "semi pro".I hope this doesn't insult you in any way...

The expectations were different and as a result: a77 got 81%, but a77II is good for "just" 80%.

As for the recommendation ("medal") - it is subjective. It should be - that's what recommendations are about, aren't they?

In fact, A-mount is somehow hard to recommend at the moment because of the uncertain future. And the camera - while it has excellent specs - is not exactly polished.Canon 70D is somehow more refined. It offers less, but with much more self-confidence. And it gives you access to Canon lens lineup, which is the main reason why anyone considers Canon bodies.:)

A-mount has as uncertain a future DSLR format in general. Sony just released 2 new advanced zooms with updated focusing for FF .. where there is no FF A-mount that can really take advantage of that.. IE There are more cameras coming. Since 2006 "a-mount has been uncertain." Minolta Abandonment Syndrome lead people to assume Sony would just dump the mount. Now that Sony is a leader in mirrorless "Sibling Comparison Disorder" has people worried even though Sony continues to release about 30% of its lenses for A-mount each year. On Wallstreet Canon's massive failure in Mirrorless and Nikon's tiny sensor version has many wondering if one or both are heading the way of IBM in computers and BLackberry in Phones.. So look at a-mount and if you like buy.. there are 100+ lens options in stock at B&H for the mount more than anyone will ever need.

To clarify, the A-mount future has been "uncertain" since 1985, way back when no self respecting photographer would be caught dead shooting autofocus. But having heard this for 30 years now, it's really nothing new.

@K E HoffmanFirst of all: this is really not important. I was giving an example why some people might not have enough confidence in A-mount to recommend it to others. The uncertain future is my reason, but DPR staff can have different ones (I suggest reading the "conclusions" of the review).

Second: correct me if I'm wrong.The latest original lens design for A-mount (not a "II") was Sony CZ 50/1.4 in early 2013. In fact it was released at the same day as the latest all-new body: the A58.

I know people were talking about the end of A-mount for a long time, but it was always something like "it will never get the popularity of Canon and Nikon" (and it didn't).But this time it is about the manufacturer itself. It looks like Sony stopped developing this system. It doesn't mean they will stop manufacturing lenses, but clearly at this point it is mostly for people who are fine with the current lineup, as new things might never come.

@sirok: Yup, that's exactly how we feel when we talk about subject tracking (X-Y plane), only to be told by users of systems with poor subjec tracking that we should just manually select our AF point, or that a test that stresses a system by both having the subject and background move is somehow in invalid proxy for real-world subject tracking.

@sirok, that's exactly right, and it was also the reason why if you were a pro you shot Nikon F3 or you weren't taken seriously. At the time I was new to the sport, young and ignorant to the nonsense that surrounded me, and that clearly my new Minolta gear was inferior. But it wasn't too long before I saw through the misinformation. A few years later the F4 was released, and all of a sudden autofocus was ready for prime time.

@Rishi, impressive video. Maybe it's presumptuous of me, but I expect that kind of performance from a $2K+ flagship brand model. I always thought they excelled very well at that, and getting the most out of their sensors (often Sony made - figured I had to throw that in there just for a good return dig ;)

I shot with F3 and F2 in those years. I once tried a friends Minolta and it was at least 3x slower in autofcous than I was focusing manually - if it could focus at all that is to say. The technology (which Minolta bought from Leitz btw) was simply not ready then. It only had advantages for beginning photographers with no focusing skills and for people with inferior eye sight.

1. "The a77II's performance appears to be more than 1EV behind the best of its peers" while A77.2 has new 24MP CMOS Sensor.

2. "1/2EV cost of its semi-transparent mirror"

1+2 = at least 1.5 stop if not 2 stop "behind the best of its peers".

There is nothing SONY can do for "1/2EV cost of its semi-transparent mirror", but SONY has to start to thinking to buy SENSOR from others for better low-light performance just like NIKON buys SONY sensors for the very same reason in the past.

BTW the effect of the SLT is already in any tests so you don't get to add it in twice.. Its got better DR than the 7DII I would trade that any day for a bit more noise at ISO 6400 I find noise easier to manage than blown highlights

While it's true that the a77 II has more DR than the 7D2, there's something odd about SLT that makes it kind of hard to make use of this extra DR. We didn't talk about it in the review b/c it'd just get too long-winded, but I'll try to address it here.

The extra half-stop light cost isn't compensated for by the camera's meter trying to give the camera an extra half-stop of light. Instead, the Raw-->Jpeg mapping is just changed. In other words, relative to another camera, there's just more Jpeg brightening happening.

Since the camera's histogram/clipping preview is based on the Jpeg, this means the camera overestimates the overall brightness of the image, & therefore pushed everything on the histogram further to the right, relative to the Raw, compared to other cameras. This means that the Jpeg/histogram is even a worse indicator of the Raw file than traditional cameras, so it's even harder to ETTR.

So, to get the advantages of that extra DR, you'll have to remember to overexpose...

Sure. Another way to state it is this: there's even more highlight headroom in your Raw than you might expect from your JPEG, b/c the Raw was underexposed to begin with, due to the light loss of the mirror.

Now if manufacturers offered histograms based off of Raw... you could still ETTR effectively. As it is, though, the Jpeg is an even worse indicator than usual for Raw highlight headroom, for the aforementioned reasons.

For clarity, my comment was about the a77 II, not Sony sensors in general, and how the Jpeg is a worse proxy for the Raw compared to other, non-SLT cameras. All the DR of the sensor is actually still there.

My explanation is actually part of the reason we didn't include the ISO-invariance results in the review, precisely b/c of the confusion I can already see it generating.

If you're old enough to remember TLRs, or twin lens reflex cameras, you will recall the upper lens used a stationary mirror to reflect the image onto the screen on top of the camera, and the lower lens had the shutter mechanism and put the image onto the film. So yes, "R" in DSLR doesn't refer to movement of the mirror, it refers to the action of using a mirror to reflect the image.

Sony has released a firmware update for the SLT-a77 II, its 24MP semi-pro APS-C camera. Firmware 2.00 claims improved autofocus speed in all light conditions, but notably a 2.5x improvement in low light. Support for XAVC-S full HD video recording is also added. Read more

At Photokina last week we sat down with Shigeki Ishizuka, the global head of Sony’s Imaging Business. As well as talking us through Sony's current Alpha strategy, Ishizuka-san also explained why the name 'NEX' was dropped and told us a little about how Sony's sensor business works. Click through for the full interview

The Sony SLT-A77 II is that company's latest DSLR using translucent mirror technology. With a 24MP CMOS sensor, it has a newly-designed 79-point AF system and offers 12fps continuous shooting with autofocus. That's all very impressive on paper, but what's it like in the real world? We've pulled together a sample gallery and added it to our a77 II First Impressions Review. See gallery

Software maker DxO Labs has announced the release of DxO Optics Pro 9.5.1 for Mac, which includes support for five additional cameras. Now supported by DxO Optics Pro (Elite Edition only) are the Sony A7S, as well as (both Standard and Elite Editions) Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III and SLT-A77 II, the Nikon 1 J4, and the Samsung NX30. Read more

The Leica Q2 is a fixed-lens, full-frame camera sporting a new 47.3MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and replaces the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116), launched in 2015.

Fujifilm's GFX 50R takes the image quality from the existing 50S model and wraps it in a new body with new controls and a lower price of entry. Is that enough to tempt you to pick one up for yourself? Find out how the GFX 50R performs in our full review.

The Mavic Air hits the sweet spot for many drone users, combining compact size with high performance and good image quality. Find out what makes it so useful, and why it might just be the best travel-friendly drone on the market today.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Montana judge Dana L. Christensen has ruled the Republican National Committee did not infringe upon the copyright of photographer Erika Peterman after they took a photo from a Democratic candidate's Facebook page without permission and altered it to use in a derogatory promotional mailer.

Leica recently announced the Q2, a digital rangefinder with a fixed 28mm F1.7 lens. It's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot with, but is it right for you? Based on our time with the camera, and its specifications, we've examined how well-suited it is for common photography use-cases.

Now that our Panasonic Lumix S1R has final firmware, we couldn't wait to get out shooting with it - and we also tried the high-res mode, which combines files to get 187 megapixel images. Because sometimes, 47 megapixels just isn't enough.

Drones can be useful tools in urban areas, where they're utilized for everything from news reporting to building inspections, but flying in these areas requires careful preparation. Here's what you need to know to do so safely.